Larry D. Lauer

The presidential primary election season is underway and I have been reflecting again on just how much the game has changed in recent years. What does it take today to win a primary, and then a general election? And what role does new technology play?

When television became a dominant medium more than 50 years ago it literally changed the game in fundamental ways. Suddenly a candidate had to look good on television, be able to afford to buy time, and present the image of a confident leader able to make everything better. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was the classic example of how one candidate could hold his own on the issues, but still lose out to the one who looked more presidential on camera.

Now we are in the age of digital media. Looking presidential on television still counts, but even more critical is the capacity to build a highly motivated “community-of-interest” among like-minded individuals using two-way interactive media platforms. Such communities are not limited by geography and can be sustained over time.  And this same technology has the power to inspire them to attend rallies and vote on election day.

Election districts are also shaped differently in this new media age. Today, districts are clusters of like-minded people with their boundaries drawn by the most powerful party. Representatives are expected to champion their district’s thinking. This generally results in taking extreme positions on issues. And the situation keeps getting worse.

In presidential and gubernatorial primary elections this same kind of extreme thinking will take place. Confusion then develops when the winners must adjust and broaden their appeal in general elections. Candidates are often driven to say things they can’t sustain after elected. Then, their popularity fades and the political pendulum can easily swing from one party to the other.

The intensity of 24/7 news and ongoing community-of-interest building activities can keep these ideology-driven issues hot long after elections. This requires year-round fundraising which continues daily. More and more money is needed, and it only comes with clear voting expectations. This is what has put wealthy individuals and corporations fully in charge.

A new media world would seem to have the power to reduce the cost of campaigning. But the opposite has actually occurred. It takes huge amounts of money to sustain this constantly changing political game, including to pay for the last-minute negative attacks which many consultants believe win elections.

It’s amazing to think that it’s television imagery and community-of-interest building technology that enabled all these changes and contributed to this mess. Time heals, to be sure. But let’s hope it does not run out before another promising society collapses. Lessons of history can be sobering.